33. The State points out that according to additional information provided by various media sources—information that is in the public domain—Mr. Palma’s death is related to the murder of congressman Jaime Hurtado and directly involves the former Ambassador of Ecuador in the Republic of Mexico, Medardo Cevallos Gómez. The State indicates that according to the statements of prisoner Lenin Ordóñez, Mr. Palma was murdered by order of the son of the former Ambassador in May 1997. It asserts that according to the investigation carried out in June 1998, Lenin Ordóñez participated in the disappearance of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza, who worked for the Cevallo group at the time. 34. The State maintains that based on statements made by Lenin Ordóñez within the proceedings related to the deaths of Mr. Palma and Jhon Mero Parrales, the Tenth Criminal Court Judge of Manabí ordered prison sentences for Medardo Cevallos Pinan and others named in the statements. 35. The State contends that the guilty verdict of March 19, 2001 showed that the participation of State agents has not been demonstrated in the crime perpetrated against Mr. Palma and, therefore, that there is no basis upon which to attribute responsibility to the State. The State asserts that, while the right to life has been violated by private parties in this case, the State has conducted an investigation that led to the punishment of the guilty parties. In this sense, it maintains that the State did not violate Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention. 36. With respect to the alleged violation of Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention, the State argues that in this case, the State apparatus undertook a serious and appropriate investigation until the parties responsible for the violation were discovered and punished according to Ecuadorian law, in spite of the complexity that characterizes an investigation of this type. The State argues that this investigation culminated in the judgment issued March 19, 2001 by the Sixth Criminal Court of Manabi against Freddy Simón Contreras, Lenin Oswaldo Ordoñez Ortiz, and Stanley Vicente Domínguez Avilés for the kidnapping and murder of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza and Jhon Mero Parrales. It indicates that the events described by the family members of Mr. Palma did not take place with the support and tolerance of public power structures.8 37. The State asserts that Article 47 of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall declare a petition inadmissible when it lacks one of the requirements of Article 46, that is, when remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted or when the petition does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention. The State contends that in this case, the alleged facts do not characterize a violation of the Convention, and that, furthermore, domestic remedies have not been exhausted. As a result, the State contends that this case should be declared inadmissible and archived in accordance with Article 47 (b) of the American Convention. 8 The State cites the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras . Merit. Judgment of July 29,1988. Ser. C. No. 4. para. 173; and the Godínez Cruz Vs. Honduras case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Ser. C. No. 3. para. 183, among others.